Is post processing a must for a good picture?

[hecster]

Hi all,

I'm new here, and have been mostly in lurking mode... admiring the AMAZING photos everybody is posting, and picking up tons of info that has slowly but surely increased my photographic eye. :cool:

Does everybody here rely on post-processing to fix their photos? Maybe i'm just a purist of sorts, but a big part of me feels like post-processing is cheating in a way. Please don't flame me for my curiosity.

At first i felt i needed to post-process, as i was losing a lot of pictures to underexposure. Normally, if i were to do some PP, i would just do an autoadjust on the levels and maybe drop out some of the black levels to get back some of what is lost in the shadows.

But now i'm starting to feel otherwise. But you all are amazing at bringing out the beauty of your pics. I'd really like to see what kinds of pictures you all take that are straight off the camera, "pre-post-processing." It really would give me a better idea of whether the pics i take are very far off from what you all capture on a normal day.

thanks, and let the photo posting begin!

[Glenn NK]

I wouldn't show anyone a pic of mine with at least some minimal PP.

Some take quite a bit of PP (I often use a black bg for flowers, and if there is any dust on it, this requires some considerable cloning, etc to clean it up).

I won't post any pics, as without a detailed step by step description of the process with before and after shots, it would be meaningless.

[garryknight]

You don't ever have to do any post-processing. For example, if you had a film camera you could just go into a darkroom to look at the undeveloped negatives.

But I'm quite partial to developing mine.

[Hermeto]

In a word: Yes.

[John_B]

hecster,
No not all of us have to post process there photos for great prints. I have adjusted my cameras to give excellent results in prints as large as 16 x 20"

However for internet viewing there is some that needs to be done. ex. I have to re size and then apply sharpening (USM) to get it to equal the same as my prints look. I also frame and put my signature to protect others from claiming they took it.

I try to get it right in the camera :)

[rdricks]

Every picture from a digital camera is post processed. Either you can do it yourself, or the camera can do it for you.

You can adjust settings in the camera for acceptable photos if you are happy with that, or you can do it yourself on the computer after the shot.

[Grimes]

Well, in my opinion, if you haven't post processed, then you're only 1/2 way done with creating the photograph. (If we are going for top quality here, not some quick snapshots.)

There is just so much you can do with digital nowadays, there's no reason to not go the extra distance in PPing.

[cdifoto]

Does everybody here rely on post-processing to fix their photos?
Some do, but they shouldn't. There's a difference between fixing and polishing. How much of what you do depends on your standards, tastes, and preferences.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18

[Mike R]

Shooting in RAW requires that all shots be PP. If you shoot in jpeg, the camera handles PP to render the jpeg. which may be good enough without requiring further PP however you would still need to crop to the aspect ratio you want to print.

WARNING: The more experienced you become, the more critical you become of you shots and you will join the ranks of those who feel they need to PP everything. :lol:

[sjones]

Back in 2003, when I bought a Canon G3 (high end point & shoot) camera, I read that using RAW was best for quality. Having minimal idea of what RAW was, I used it nevertheless. I vowed not to use any post processing at the time, as I thought of it as cheating. Oddly, my RAW files seemed soft, even to my then very novice eyes.

Only a couple years later did I learn that sharpening was typically required when shooting RAW.

And then, just before upgrading to a DSLR, I learned more about the history of photography, and what actually went on in the darkroom, particularly in regards to black & white prints. The "post processing" that went on, as I learned, was actually an artistic craft within its own right, facilitating the photographer's ability to create a unique interpretation of what they envisaged; see Ansel Adams for a start.

You can shoot in JPEG and set the camera's parameters (such as saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc.) before the shot, thus avoiding any mucking about afterwards. However, depending on what you shoot and what you seek, there are constraints with this approach. More importantly, shooting in JPEG to "get it right in the camera" is not any more of a pure approach than shooting RAW and using software afterwards. This is because JPEG relies on post processing as well. That is, although you set the parameters before the shot, digital manipulation to the image still occurs after exposure. So philosophically, adjusting saturation before or after the shot is largely an arbitrary issue, especially since digital presents a different paradigm not directly analogous to film.

Of course, regardless of shooting RAW, JPEG, or film, in terms of "getting it right in the camera," the areas of concern should center on composition, lighting, correct exposure, focus, and an interesting subject mater.

[hecster]

I can surely see the reasoning behind pp. i'm trying to avoid it as much as possible, but i guess sometimes to bring it to life, a little sharpening and color balancing is required. Perhaps it just depends on what you're planning to do with it.

a lot of my pictures do not have that tack sharpness that others get when they post on here. .. one of the other reasons i was curious how people's pictures look pre-processing.

it sure would help me to put my worries to rest that i'm a terrible photographer. when i resize the picture, naturally it brings out the sharpness i don't see when i 100% zoom my pictures on the playback screen.

Appreciate the feedback and advice. keep it coming!

[cdifoto]

There are approximately 3.2 gabillion variables that determine image quality, some beyond our control as a photographer, some well within our scope. That and the fact that "post processing" is a broad term for after-capture treatment, you can't really just say "oh so that's why his photos are good and mine aren't so good."

[JeffreyG]

a lot of my pictures do not have that tack sharpness that others get when they post on here. .. one of the other reasons i was curious how people's pictures look pre-processing.

Try applying some USM to you shots to start. If they are still not tack sharp look to technique:

1. Use good support. Extreme sharpness comes on good tripods. Handholding, even with high shutter speeds and good form will cause slight softness. The slower the shutter speeds you use the softer the shots get. See 2)
2. IS and good form can allow handholding with lower shutter speeds, but this delivers 'usable' shots....not extreme sharpness. It's great that IS can deliver 1/60th shots at 200mm, but don't expect amazing sharpness. Expect sharp enough to print at moderate size.
3. Focus accuracy and technique. It's possible to miss, espeically moving subjects. Practice helps.

[poloman]

Here is a link....
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
Read Ron's articles on sharpening. They are comprehensive, to say the least.
As you will see, there are lots of other articles too.

[neumanns]

Odd's are if your into DSLR it was for quality and control...Why stop at the camera. Even if it is just as minimal as optimizing for output most shot's need PP.

If you just want an acceptable level of quality for general usage... web display, 4 x 6 print, email. you can either set the in camera peramiters to obtain "acceptable" or get a point and shoot.

Me I like quality and control, that's why I went down the DSLR road...But I'll admit, I shoot my fair share of snapshot's that don't get much attention in "developing" aka Post Processing.

[S.Horton]

Yes.

[chauncey]

Poloman, great link and worth rereading.

[pennypue]

Love the link too.
I'll be bookmarking that page.

Hecster, why not post a pic of yours and see what people can do with it?

[izatt82]

a lot of my shots i post on here are straight from the camera

[Glenn NK]

I should have said that I always shoot RAW. If you shoot JPEG, then much of the PP is already done by the camera. In fact, you can set the camera up (JPEG) to not require any PP at all (but this assumes that you're happy with the camera's results - I'm not).

I really don't believe that a RAW image can be adequate or acceptable without some PP. Perhaps that's just my opinion.

[poloman]

I agree with you Glenn NK
I have been taking more care with my shots lately and with a lot of them there is little needed.
But all digital images can use a little sharpening.

[egordon99]

EVERY shot if post-processed! If you shoot JPG, you're relying on the camera's JPG processor to take the RAW data along with your image settings (sharpness/contrast/saturation/etc...) to "develop" the JPG. I prefer to keep the RAW data intact and "massage" the JPG (actually TIFF data at first) out of it using ACR and the appropriate settings for THAT particular image.

So nothing to do with "rescuing" a bad image, or getting it right in camera. It's just do you want control over the process? or do you want to leave it up the in-camera processor? Just like I'd rather control the ISO/shutter speed/aperture/focus/etc..., I'd prefer to be in control of the ENTIRE process.

[polarbare]

Maybe i'm just a purist of sorts, but a big part of me feels like post-processing is cheating in a way.

think of it this way.. you're taking a 2D image of a 3d world. You also can't capture the dynamic lighting range that your eyes can, and although a 50mm lens approximates your eyes, it isn't perfect. Therefore you've already blown up on it being "pure". You simply can replicate the what your eyes saw with a camera at this point. If anything PP goes towards helping you in best imitating what you saw. :)

If you simply want to only show what you were able to compose in camera, buy a P&S, chuck it on auto and snap happily. :)

[lungdoc]

For a good picture...no

For good pictures in general...YES!

[poloman]

If your having ethical problems with PP, consider the technology you are using. Where do you draw the line?
Once you get pre-petroglyph, how do you express yourself?
I can hear this same discussion when humans first discovered primitive paint.

[_aravena]

Generally yes but I've come across the occasional photo where I've done so little that if ai shot in JPEG (always RAW) it would have been fine I'm sure.

But generally, yes. Even film, the best were those with the darkroom skills.

[tonylong]

In the film world, what we with digital consider Post Processing began with film choice, then ended in the darkroom.

You choose a film for ISO (which was not just for speed but sharpness as well) and for qualities such as contrast, saturation, and white balance, as well as for black and white shooting. You also used filters to affect color and white balance. In the darkroom, you adjusted for exposure, possibly pushing or pulling from your "native" film developing, and, with those who did their own developing, could apply sharpening methods and dodge and burn methods to taste.

So, there was not a "purist" approach in film in regards to bringing out the best of your exposure and composition. The serious photographer thought out what film and accessories best suited the scene, and what developing technique best suited the final result.

With digital, most of these choices (contrast, saturation, white balance/color shift, black and white, sharpness, exposure compensations, dodging and burning) are applied digitally, either by the camera (jpeg only) or in your digital darkroom.

Yes, if you have a good exposure and composition and make desired choices for your jpeg rendering, you can get a result that could match your best RAW efforts for many scenes, but then you are limited by the nature of jpeg conversion and compression in how much further enhancement you could do and many of us do not want to give up any creative control of our images, hence our shooting in RAW.

So, it's a mistake to think of post processing as "cheating". It's is simply a digital approach to doing what photographers have always done: careful choices that bring the best out of your photos. But with digital, the choices and the creative power are not "frozen" with initial choices in film and filter and developing. We have more latitude to create and recreate our images, work with a color image and a black and white version simultaneously, for example, to capture and render to our creative hearts' content.

[tzalman]

Maybe i'm just a purist of sorts, but a big part of me feels like post-processing is cheating in a way.

So you have left all the camera settings at default? Changing Picture Style or parameter settings - that is imposing your will on the camera - feels like cheating in a way. Sort of sullies the purity of the machine with human conceit.

[yogestee]

My philosophy is you can't make a good pic out of a crap one using post processing but you can make a good pic better.. I try to do everything in camera and use mimimal post processing..

[Dan-o]

I just love it when people say " No, I get it right in camera" give me a break.

[Dan-o]

I wasn't referring to your post Jurgen. Just in general.

[jrader]

I was torn on this same question when I first bought an SLR and started learning/researching about photography. I had always been a P&Ser and had only occasionally used PS to PP my images (mostly to do panoramics). It was only after my then girlfriend bought me a book on photography describing techniques from the beginning to the end of the process from a professional point of view. It was then what I realized what was missing from my pictures. I am still a purist when it comes to photography: get it as right as I can in camera using techniques/filters/patience. When it comes to PP though, I have become a true believer in how it can help to make a picture more like how my eyes saw it. I try and not "cheat it" though during the PP process (because it is SOOOOOOO easy to).

When it comes down to it, who are you producing the pictures for? Because as a photographer, you have creative control over the process, and if you are just taking pictures for yourself or are sticking to your philosophy, no worries, do as you please. Just know that there are always going to be people out there that will manipulate the art form to what they please, and if their products sell, so be it. It's a buyer's market, simple supply and demand. After all, photography is an art and not everyone agrees as to what is good and what is not.

:)

John

[yogestee]

I just love it when people say " No, I get it right in camera" give me a break.

But you can't make fig jam out of foul sh*t!!

[S.Horton]

I love that saying. Reminds me of a project I'm working on........

[sjones]

But you can't make fig jam out of foul sh*t!!

True, but because shooting RAW typically necessitates some post processing work on the computer does not remotely mean that the photographer did something wrong in camera.

I do not think too many people in this discussion are advocating post processing as a corrective agent that affords the photographer greater leeway to be negligent. The crux of the issue is the OP's concern about purity, one that I understand having had similar feelings when I started out.

Yet, digital is a different medium, and of course, even in film---as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread---post exposure darkroom work has been an integral aspect of photography since its inception.

Moreover, to me, the most important aspect of photography is the print; and what you see on your computer screen seldom makes it way to a physical paper print as desired without additional alterations, including sharpening and dynamic range adjustments.

[airfrogusmc]

Just like in the days of film you have to start with a good image but PP finishes your vision. Not to do any is only cheating that vision. Think of it as a digital darkroom. Theres only ONE person that knows what the final image is suppose to look like, thats the person that made the exposure.

[Hermeto]

Please don’t take me wrongly, this is not aimed against anyone in this forum, but in my experience, 99% of people who insisted on post processing puritanism were those who didn’t know how to do that, and for some reason were reluctant to learn.
The remaining 1% goes to professional sports and PJ photographers who, due to the nature of their work, are forbidden to change anything in their shots.

[John_B]

I just love it when people say " No, I get it right in camera" give me a break.Dan-o,
It obviously explains a talent you just don't seem to understand.
Please don’t take me wrongly, this is not aimed against anyone in this forum, but in my experience, 99% of people who insisted on post processing puritanism were those who didn’t know how to do that, and for some reason were reluctant to learn.
The remaining 1% goes to professional sports and PJ photographers who, due to the nature of their work, are forbidden to change anything in their shots.
Hermeto,
So what % do I fit in? ??? Doing graphic designing for years. I think its safe to say I can use software to manipulate my photos!

Just like in the days of film you have to start with a good image but PP finishes your vision. Not to do any is only cheating that vision. Think of it as a digital darkroom. Theres only ONE person that knows what the final image is suppose to look like, thats the person that made the exposure.airfrogusmc,
Did you ever shoot slides? ??? If you did was it just to do P&S type shots then? ???

Come on people, if you like, need or want to edit your photos in software then good... enjoy it! Share how you do it to help others see and understand.

But to knock those that don't is so unprofessional!

Respect a photographer to have a personal choice or belief. Not all of us want or need to use manipulation and/or editing to get excellent prints from our DSLR's Which after all was the OP's topic

After all, what is the definition of Photography? Here is a quote from Merriam-Webster Dictionary ;)
Photography: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=photography)

[Hermeto]

Hermeto,
So what % do I fit in? Doing graphic designing for years. I think its safe to say I can use software to manipulate my photos!


I don’t know, you tell me your reasoning..
I wolud really like to know, that's why we have this discussion..

Yes I agree, there are many occasions when I shoot straight JPGs and do not bother with PP at all, there are many occasions when I do just a minimum of PP, like 30 seconds in Photoshop - but I have never made a shot that SOOC looked better than the same one, after appropriate amount of post processing!
And I consider myself a complete noob in Photoshop..

[egordon99]

For those that don't do ANY PP on photos, you didn't PP, but the image/JPG processor on the camera sure did (see my previous post)....If you're happy with the result, great! But it's entirely possibly that had you delayed the inevitable PP until you got the RAW file into your favorite RAW editor, you may have even been happier with that POST-PROCESSED image.

I shoot entirely RAW and just about every image at least gets opened in ACR. Sometimes I don't need to touch any of the sliders, but most of the time I end up adjusting at least the brightness/contrast/exposure/recovery/blacks/clarity/vibrance a bit. Why leave these decisions to the on-camera JPG processor? So you can say "It's a pure non-PP'd photo?" bubkus! You just gave up control of the process to the camera. But it was still PP'd!

[Dan-o]

Dan-o,
It obviously explains a talent you just don't seem to understand.

There you go. You insinuate that us " post possessors" just go out hold down the shutter at 8.5 shots per second never thinking about exposure or composition. Every shot can be made better in PP. Obviously most people are photo enthusiasts on these boards and all strive to "get it right in camera" I'm pretty sure I understand how to get it right in camera.

[Dan-o]

But you can't make fig jam out of foul sh*t!!

That is kind of my point and why it bugs me when people say " no I don't PP I get it right in camera". As if us post processors just shoot cr@p and try to work it out later in PP.

[John_B]

There you go. You insinuate that us " post possessors" just go out hold down the shutter at 8.5 shots per second never thinking about exposure or composition. Every shot can be made better in PP. Obviously most people are photo enthusiasts on these boards and all strive to "get it right in camera" I'm pretty sure I understand how to get it right in camera.Dan-o,
I did not imply that post processors just go out hold down the shutter button. If you read my whole reply I said: Come on people, if you like, need or want to edit your photos in software then good... enjoy it! Share how you do it to help others see and understand.

[Dan-o]

No not all of us have to post process there photos for great prints.
I was this statement John.

[12stones]

I think the intent of the OP's question was to ask if everyone has to use PS, PSP, Lightroom or some other software to modify their pics to make them good or better, not in how the camera/computer converts and processes RAW/jpg.

With that in mind, no, not everyone has to PP their images. Getting it right in camera goes a long way. This doesn't mean that they can't be tweaked and made better, but it's not always necessary.

Personally, I'm hoping that as my experience grows, my reliance on PP lessens so that I don't have to do much, if anything, to make a great image better.

[chauncey]

"Get it right in the camera"....What does that mean?

Do you take shots that only fit the dynamic range of the camera?

That antsy snow white egret against a dark folige background that you must crop to get a frame filler...
pass it up because you can't get it right in the camera?

The wedding photog that has an African American couple in a white gown and a black tux on a sunny day and no PP...yeah right.

Conditions aren't ideal most of the time. Take the shot, doing the best you can, and try to repair the damage in PP.

[poloman]

There is another side to this whole game.
Post processing allows us to do things we could never do otherwise. A good example is improving a lousy background. It would be nice if you could always move you subjects where you wanted them. It's not going to happen. So....you have a great shot of a great subject with a big orange powerline ball above their head. A little bit of cloning can solve it and bring the attention back to your subject. What about that something that you never noticed. I had a beautiful wedding shot of the bride and groom holding hands in front of the reverend, emotion on their faces. With one of the bride's maids head and eyes blurry but visible doing a Kilroy in the background over the bride's arm. She blended in so well with the bright background, I never saw her until later. I removed her.
I think if you never PP because you think it is unethical, you are a journalist or you are cheating yourself.
Chauncey...I see now we are thinking the same way. :)

[airfrogusmc]

Dan-o,
It obviously explains a talent you just don't seem to understand.

Hermeto,
So what % do I fit in? ??? Doing graphic designing for years. I think its safe to say I can use software to manipulate my photos!

airfrogusmc,
Did you ever shoot slides? ??? If you did was it just to do P&S type shots then? ???

Come on people, if you like, need or want to edit your photos in software then good... enjoy it! Share how you do it to help others see and understand.

But to knock those that don't is so unprofessional!

Respect a photographer to have a personal choice or belief. Not all of us want or need to use manipulation and/or editing to get excellent prints from our DSLR's Which after all was the OP's topic

After all, what is the definition of Photography? Here is a quote from Merriam-Webster Dictionary ;)
Photography: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=photography)

Yes thousand of transparencies 35MM 2 1/4 and even 4X5 and made Ciba Chrome prints from some those, even won photographer of the year when I was in college with a portfolio of full frame 11X14 ciba chrome prints and burned and dodged and even did some masking to knock down contrast in some areas to give me what I had in my minds eye at the moment of exposure. In my opinion if you don't finish your work its work unfinished. Just like you mat and frame a piece its all part of the process of finishing your work. Your vision. If you don't see it through to COMPLETION you are not finishing that vision. How could you be?
Like Ansel Adams once said making the exposure is composing the musical score. Processing the negs and making the print is performing the score.
If you give the same raw image of the same neg to 4 really good photographers that are also very good printers you are more than likely to get 4 different finished images from that file or neg. So the question is do you want to trust your work to someone that may or may not have the same vision as you? Thats not saying shoot sloppy or don't get it as close to right in camera but I have seen very FEW images straight out of camera that truly capture the photographer true vision. I do agree with an earlier statement is most that don't think it should be done or those that don't know how to do it and to them I say take the time to learn it because its just as important as making a good exposure. .

[garryknight]

Changing Picture Style or parameter settings - that is imposing your will on the camera - feels like cheating in a way. Sort of sullies the purity of the machine with human conceit.

As if the camera weren't human conceit enough...;)

[tonylong]

I'm curious, as far as those who are satisfied with "out of camera only" results -- when you say out of camera, no PP, do you mean jpegs with your settings for sharpness, contrast and saturation set to "Neutral"? This is as close as you can get to "no PP done". If you use "Standard" settings, then you are in fact doing PP, just in-camera.

If you're shooting RAW, there are default settings in your RAW processor that are applied automatically -- do you turn these settings off? If not, then you are using PP.

My point is that even if we use settings in the camera that please us, we are normally using PP, whether in-camera or not. If you are shooting film and choose a film type that meets your needs, you are choosing to "alter" a picture from a film type that might not be so pleasing to you.

This is a common question that gets tossed around, but is not that much of a mystery. Every image gets some kind of processing. How much or how little is up to the photographer/processor. The only question is how much of the process does the individual photographer want to control. There is no better or worse, right or wrong. There are no grounds for snobbishness, because if we are all after the same thing, capturing and presenting excellent images, then the approach we take that meets our needs is, for us at the present time, the right approach but does not imply that our approach is superior to photogs that take another approach. Each will have advantages and disadvantages.

But, back to my original point: it's not whether your images are PP'd: they all are. It's only about how much PP you want to do yourself, and how much you want to leave up to your camera. Personal preference, though, does not imply that "I am better than you", but rather "my chosen approach is better for me and my workflow". Hopefully, we all will be able to produce sublime images, whichever approach we take!

[TeeQ]

But, back to my original point: it's not whether your images are PP'd: they all are. It's only about how much PP you want to do yourself, and how much you want to leave up to your camera. Personal preference, though, does not imply that "I am better than you", but rather "my chosen approach is better for me and my workflow". Hopefully, we all will be able to produce sublime images, whichever approach we take!

Very well said and it puts my mind at ease when I'm looking at my photos taken inside the hockey/ringette arena and I have to PP them... Thank you :D

[tonylong]

Very well said and it puts my mind at ease when I'm looking at my photos taken inside the hockey/ringette arena and I have to PP them... Thank you :D

Heh! There is no shame here! In fact, over the past couple of weeks, I've been doing a lot of shooting in bright sunlit days with other types of bright highlights where I've been shooting in shadows. I don't know of any DSLR that will enable you to give a lot of highlight detail when shooting into shadow areas and getting a "good" exposure for those shadow areas, so you have to resort to either an HDR approach or real work with highlights and shadows in PP.

Let me show you an example, shot with the 5D and the 24-105 lens, a scene set in shadows with a bright sunlit background. I took a total of eight shots at different exposures. Rather than use an HDR approach, for this example I chose one shot that retained highlight detail, but was very underexposed for the foreground.

Here's a "good exposure" for the foreground:
http://www.pbase.com/image/102225640.jpg

Note that much of the background detail is lost!

Here is a shot that retains background highlight detail:
http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/102225632.jpg

Taking this last shot and "cheating" using PP, this is my final answer:
http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/102142350/original.jpg

[Dan-o]

Cheater ;)

[TeeQ]

Here are my PP photos work in progress...
1st picture is RAW opened in PS CS3, zero PP
2nd picture is RAW opened in PS CS3, exposure bumped up to +4.0

[sjones]

Not all of us want or need to use manipulation and/or editing to get excellent prints from our DSLR's Which after all was the OP's topic

That is just it; if you are setting parameters in camera for a JPEG shot, you are effectively relying on manipulation as much as someone who edits the photograph afterwards in Photoshop. This point has been made repeatedly on this thread, and to assume otherwise is simply delusional.

Moreover, there is a patronizing undertone about saying, hey, if you want to manipulate and edit, that is fine with me, but I do not feel the need, as I strive to get it right in the camera.

The OP's topic was about "purity" as much as anything else, and it is misleading to suggest or even slightly insinuate that any software work on the computer somehow spoils the purity of the process.

[TeeQ]

Sorry for the double post...

This picture is RAW opened in PS CS3, exposure bumped up to +4.0, plus Tint bumped to +48 and fill light up to 40, and brightness up to 26...

[poloman]

If you want purity....throw away the camera and just remember it. Uh oh....flawed memory? Oh well......

[Glenn NK]

That is just it; if you are setting parameters in camera for a JPEG shot, you are effectively relying on manipulation as much as someone who edits the photograph afterwards in Photoshop. This point has been made repeatedly on this thread, and to assume otherwise is simply delusional.

Moreover, there is a patronizing undertone about saying, hey, if you want to manipulate and edit, that is fine with me, but I do not feel the need, as I strive to get it right in the camera.

The OP's topic was about "purity" as much as anything else, and it is misleading to suggest or even slightly insinuate that any software work on the computer somehow spoils the purity of the process.


True, and to the point.

Purity is a delusion - a self delusion.

[airfrogusmc]

Adams is considered a Straight photographer a purist and the zone system is about manipulating the negatives and prints to match what he saw in his minds eye.

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without."
Ansel Adams

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
Ansel Adams

[midnight_rider]

I never post process. It is not because I feel like it is cheating or that I feel like it is wrong. I just have never taken the time to learn how. I only use adobe to resize pictures for the web. I would like to learn how to do some of the things that I see here on the forum ( image stacking and adjusting the tones for the better) but I spend all of my time behind the lens and rarely even have time to do more that download my pictures and print. Not that I am complaining about that.

[lungdoc]

I never post process. It is not because I feel like it is cheating or that I feel like it is wrong. I just have never taken the time to learn how. I only use adobe to resize pictures for the web. I would like to learn how to do some of the things that I see here on the forum ( image stacking and adjusting the tones for the better) but I spend all of my time behind the lens and rarely even have time to do more that download my pictures and print. Not that I am complaining about that.

You are doing yourself and your pictures a disservice by not learning some basic postprocessing. The amount of improvement you can get from modest adjustments to RAW files is amazing. Do yourself a favour and try one of the more complete RAW processors like Lightroom (also a great organizer and if you are shooting a lot you need that as well) or Bibble - you can make fast adjustments to large numbers of pictures very easily and correct things like noise, less straight horizons, shadow or highlight issues, CA, vignetting, sharpness, white balance, levels/curves etc. etc. This is quite different from the detailed work on single images approach that Photoshop takes and I found much easier to use especially to use quickly on larger numbers of shots. Photoshop or Elements are excellent tools as well but do take longer both to learn and to use; I find this more suitable for the occasional photo that is really worth the effort.

This isn't like traditional darkroom work in that it is just so much easier and faster, with such a broader range of possible improvements. If traditional darkroom would be hours of work for modest benefits this is like seconds of work per picture for a lot of difference.

[midnight_rider]

You are doing yourself and your pictures a disservice by not learning some basic postprocessing. The amount of improvement you can get from modest adjustments to RAW files is amazing. Do yourself a favour and try one of the more complete RAW processors like Lightroom (also a great organizer and if you are shooting a lot you need that as well) or Bibble - you can make fast adjustments to large numbers of pictures very easily and correct things like noise, less straight horizons, shadow or highlight issues, CA, vignetting, sharpness, white balance, levels/curves etc. etc. This is quite different from the detailed work on single images approach that Photoshop takes and I found much easier to use especially to use quickly on larger numbers of shots. Photoshop or Elements are excellent tools as well but do take longer both to learn and to use; I find this more suitable for the occasional photo that is really worth the effort.

This isn't like traditional darkroom work in that it is just so much easier and faster, with such a broader range of possible improvements. If traditional darkroom would be hours of work for modest benefits this is like seconds of work per picture for a lot of difference.

I will have to look into that, thanks. I would really like to use a faster program. Adobe is very time consuming and I think that is why I have not really put much time into it.

[DStanic]

I love Lightroom. Fast and easy- but still has all the tools you need. great way to keep your photos organized. It's got auto-tone, auto white balance which I find work quite well for something that is automatic. Often I'll click on auto and then fine-tune to my liking. Presets for sepia, B&W and other "creative" settings.

I've got Photoshop CS3 and Elements too, but only use them when I have to (not very much anymore).

[lungdoc]

I'd suggest trying the free trials of Bibble or Lightroom. Bibble is a lot cheaper unless you can get academic version of Lightroom. Lightroom has much more organizational/database functioning, some excellent new local adjustment tools and much more wodespread use/tutorials etc (see here for some good samples http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/resources.html#learning ) . Lightroom is more complex and more demanding of a computer, Bibble has better lens distortion correction. There are other options as well; I have experience with these two with good success at "quick and easy" improvements of my pictures.

[eelnoraa]

Some degree of PP is a must in order to produce a good photograph, such as exposure, britghtness, contrast, WB ... nothing fency, just basic adjustment. In the film day, these were done in the lab. In digital era, it is your computer.

[poloman]

This has devastated a lot of pro film photographers. They were used to setting up, taking the shot, and sending it all off. Now, if they have managed to make the change, they are chained to the computer doing post processing.
Many people think that pros just download their cards and are then done. In some cases this is true as in sports and journalism. We now have the ability to control our product more than at any time in the past. But it does exact a time and technology toll.....
We need something to separate us from the everyday P&S hack.
This is better gear, glass and post processing.

[tonylong]

I never post process. It is not because I feel like it is cheating or that I feel like it is wrong. I just have never taken the time to learn how. I only use adobe to resize pictures for the web. I would like to learn how to do some of the things that I see here on the forum ( image stacking and adjusting the tones for the better) but I spend all of my time behind the lens and rarely even have time to do more that download my pictures and print. Not that I am complaining about that.

I'd say there are many types of photography that, given proper exposure and in-camera PP settings, would not require extra effort on the computer. This discussion correlates to the discussions about RAW versus jpeg shooting: many photogs in the sports, wedding and studio world have the ability to set up their camera for the scene and want (or in many cases need) to have a jpeg out of the camera right away.

Other types of photography and scenes are more challenging (see Ansel Adams' quote above) -- a "good exposure" may not result in a "good final image". Even if you get in-camera settings "good" for WB, contrast, saturation and sharpening, many of us shoot all the time in "tone-challenged" scenes, so that shooting in RAW and post processing is a very normal and good part of our workflow. Taking a "tone-challenged" image and developing it into a pleasing image is, well, a pleasure!

[poloman]

I always shoot wedding RAW. No second chance.

[lungdoc]

=
We need something to separate us from the everyday P&S hack.
This is better gear, glass and post processing.

I'd go so far as to put shot-taking/making ability, post processing ability, gear and glass in that (descending obviously) order of importance. The skilled post-processor with a G9 or XT will outdo a jpg shooter with a 1 series and L's in most situations (obviously there are a few exceptions as discussed).

[midnight_rider]

I'd say there are many types of photography that, given proper exposure and in-camera PP settings, would not require extra effort on the computer. This discussion correlates to the discussions about RAW versus jpeg shooting: many photogs in the sports, wedding and studio world have the ability to set up their camera for the scene and want (or in many cases need) to have a jpeg out of the camera right away.

Other types of photography and scenes are more challenging (see Ansel Adams' quote above) -- a "good exposure" may not result in a "good final image". Even if you get in-camera settings "good" for WB, contrast, saturation and sharpening, many of us shoot all the time in "tone-challenged" scenes, so that shooting in RAW and post processing is a very normal and good part of our workflow. Taking a "tone-challenged" image and developing it into a pleasing image is, well, a pleasure!

I usually shoot in jpeg simply because I do not have much time to post process. I have shot in raw a few time and really liked the freedom that it offered. It would save me some time in field if I did shoot in raw. Then I would not have to set the WB before each change in location. It could be adjusted later with great ease. I do adore some of the things that I have seen here on the forum. Mainly some of the post where the personask how others would processs a photo. The differences are amazing. I also really like some of the HDR photos that I have seen here and LordV's image stacking on macro shots. I am going to buy lightroom 2 and give it an honest try (when I get time LOL).

[Nick_b]

Well, I don't always PP my shots. I shot RAW and edit in Lightroom so when I say I don't PP I mean I don't change the presets in lightroom. When I shoot I always try to get my exposures down by using the historgram and highlight warning. I find if I can achieve a good exposure in camera my results out of lightroom are great. I shoot in RAW because sometimes I need to adjust white balance or exposure but most of the time I'll just pass on the crap shots.

I don't enjoy smoothing skin or cloning out objects so I avoid it like the plague. Doesn't mean I think it's "wrong". It's the final result that matters.

Here are a few shots with no PP (shot RAW, imported to LR and then exported from LR with no other adjustments).

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_6868.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/_MG_7087.jpg

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/_MG_6754.jpg

and here is a heavily processed image. I smoothed skin, sharpened, cloned out stuff, etc. Hopefully you can't tell overly.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/LargeJPEGPortrait1.jpg

[poloman]

Great shots Nick B. Enjoyed seeing them.

[Nick_b]

Great shots Nick B. Enjoyed seeing them.


Thanks!

the most common adjustment I make is white balance.


http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_8284-2.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/CSM%20last%20show/IMG_8284-3.jpg